About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
on jobs in baghdad, kabul, kandahar, in other parts of the iraq and afghanistan. and the irony of course is that we are being told that we are in this terrible crisis, when the republicans brought out a military bill that increased the military by $17 billion, gives more money to iraq and afghanistan, and i have to say i am very nervous that the president might agree to keep troops in iraq next year, which is longer than george bush wanted to keep them there. so, yeah, i think we can in the short-term save a lot of money by bringing the troops home with no negative job impact. but to get back to your question, what mr. bernanke said correctly is, yes, over the long-term, you should have a plan for deficit reduction from both higher taxes in my judgment and spending cuts. but in the short-term, if you were to do that, you would slow down the recovery. and that's why it's a timing issue. >> in terms of what you just said there about defense cuts, and what might be possible in this congress, i feel like the things that i have heard from republicans that seem like they have sort of silver li
about afghanistan and what it calls men and women to serve and what they do so. let's look at this story. the deficit battle is favoring the gop. we will see house some of this plays out this week. : is thetion today is constitution still relevant? now to the democratic line with lawrence from new jersey. welcome. caller: thanks for taking my call. >> is the constitution still relevant? i don't think it does. most americans don't know anything about the treaty of kent. it says to return things to the way they were before. we established the federal government, the irs, and federal income-tax. anniversary ofe 2 the signing of this treaty. rights will be taken away. host: here's a comment from twitter. here's another comment on twitter. let's take a look at some final numbers. this is from culpeper, virginia. thanks for all your calls this morning. we will be back in a few moments talking about topics ranging from white people serve in the military to what americans think about patriotism. we will be right back. >> ♪ >> today on c-span, the dalai lama and vincent harding talk about non-v
that opium production in afghanistan's helmand province has declined for the third year in a row. at the hearing, a de a witness described some of the difficulties his agency has experienced try to extradite high-level drug traffickers from afghanistan to the united states. this is an hour-and-a-half. >> the purpose of the hearing is to address our counternarcotics efforts in afghanistan as we begin the drawdown of international troops. i hope we can all agree that the taliban has morphed into a hybrid. it is one part terrorist organization and one part global drug trafficking organization. for the past today years, virtually every heroin processing lab raided by the dea, special forces, and afghan police has ties to the taliban. what they find is not only large quantities of opium and heroin, but also improvised explosive devices, bomb making materials, and taliban training manuals. in one raid last year, 2056 pounds of high-grade heroin with a wholesale value of $56 million was seized. experts agree it may take many years to get the drug trade in afghanistan under control. as t
drawing down the cost of our military efforts in afghanistan and iraq. last year we spent a little over $150 billion. this year we'll spend a little over $100 billion. and the plan is to soon be down to at least $50 billion in two or three years. so over the ten-year period there'll be about eight years at nearly $50 billion or so spent on the war instead of $150 billion. that's part of the plan that we've been operating on for a long time. $150 billion for the war is not baseline expenditure of the united states. it was never projected to continue at that level, so hopefully we could bring it below $50 billion. maybe we went get to $50 billion. i don't know. but what is the reasonable estimate? i think the house republicans and the president said it would drop to $50 billion, and that would be the baseline out there for the rest of the time. that's $1 trillion. that's $1 trillion. so you take $1 trillion out of the $2.7 trillion, you're down to $1.7 trillion. and another thing that's scored in that, since that $1 trillion in war costs is scored the way mr. reid scored that, which is ph
're at war for 10 years, in afghanistan and iraq at surge levels. we assume we're going to be fighting this war for 10 more years, with over 100,000 troops in afghanistan and oh, gosh, wait, we're going to withdraw our troops in 2014. $1 trillion in savings. i've got a better idea. let's pass a bill to cover the moon with yogurt that will cost $5 trillion today. and then let's pass a bill the next day to cancel that bill. we could save $5 trillion. wait, i've got a better idea. our debt is $14 trillion. let's come up with a new plan to spend $14 trillion, then rescind it the next day and let's save $14 trillion. this stuff is fiscal fantasy. you can't make this stuff up, mr. speaker. suggesting that we're going to be in a war at these levels for 10 more years when everybody knows we've already decided not to do that, that does not get us $1.3 trillion in spending cuts. only in washington can you add up math like that. we need real spending cuts. i yield myself an additional minute to say, this is getting serious, mr. speaker. very serious. we can't keep spending money we just don't hav
down more or less, and native indians in brazil, even in afghanistan, they call the areas where they are doing all the bombing, they are tribal areas, and i wondered if you could just speak to the fact that indigenous people all over the world are under attack, and is there some way that we can get this out into the press so understand that this should be stopped immediately. >> guest: well, what you're saying is true. i was just in norway, and i did a performance with asami person and a woman from india. she's a naga, that's the name of their indigenous nation under attack by the burmese, and i think what it is is there's always the land hunger, the need -- taking over for land, and the indoing nows people are -- indigenous people are vulnerable because they're in isolated areas or places they were sent that suddenly have resources available that others want. for instance, chevron has in, i think, it's costa rica has just covered the people, the land, the water, and the animals in oil so what we think about is the oil in the gulf, but we don't realize that that's happening in o
. even in afghanistan, they call the areas where they're doing all the bombing the tribal areas. and i was wondering if you could just speak to the fact that indigenous people all over the world are under attack. and is there some way we can get this out into the press so they can understand that this should be stopped immediately? >> guest: well, what you're saying was true. i was just in norway and did a performance with a sammi person and a notga woman in india who were under attack by the burmese. and what i think it is there's always the land hunger, the taking over for land. and the indigenous people are vulnerable because they're in isolated areas or they're in places that they were sent that suddenly have resources available that others want, for instance, chevron, you know, has been -- i think it's costa rica has just covered the people of the land, the water and all the animals in oil. and so we think about -- what we think about the oil in the gulf but we don't realize that's happening in our regions as well. so it should be published. it should be in papers. and it's very d
of every six department of defense dollars is going to afghanistan. we got the taliban out of power. karzai stood for free elections in 2004. al qaeda was dismantled and sent into western pakistan. this is not a nation-building exercise. this is a counter-terror exercise. we do not need 100,000 troops on the ground of the cost we're paying today in order to get the job done. [applause] thank you. i am here to tell you the future of the united states is not going to be determined in the prairies of afghanistan. the future of the united states is going to be determined by how well-prepared we are to compete in a highly competitive 21st century. that battle will be waged across the pacific ocean. we have some work to do. as you walk out of this building, i want you to remember why we're in this race. it is because it is about the generation and we're about to pass the country to and the condition in which they will find it. my priorities will be debt and spending. we have no choice. trajectory we're on is unsustainable. launching a new industrial revolution is within our grasp. it has happened
're putting money in other places like to the war, places like that in afghanistan, to other wars. that is my question. guest: two interesting things your question brings up. when fdr desigd so security, he said, we're going to put it on your checks every week so you will see it being taken out and you will note it is there for you. that was very, very important to fdr and the preservation of the social safety net. also, he said, we are going to make sure that every time >> "washington journal" begins live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. live to capitol hill now. oklahoma senator tom coburn is about to release his plan to cut the deficit by $9 trillion over the next decade. >> good afternoon. thank you for being here. let me first of all thank my staff, who has worked thousands of hours the last six weeks to accumulate, sifted through every agency and every program of the federal government. you are going to see in this report details like you have never seen. this is a plan, not the only plan, but it is the only plan that will put our country back on a footing in needs to be put on. it i
is going to count winding down the war in afghanistan as a substantial part of the savings. that could be worth about $1 trillion over 10 years. meanwhile, john boehner is working on his own deficit- reduction debt limit increase plan. he would take -- that plan would be affected in two stages. the first would be $900 trillion or so deficit reduction package, spending cuts, paired with roughly equal amount in debt limit increase. then he would empower a special committee to find an additional $1.60 trillion to authorize or trigger another increase in the debt ceiling. the problem with this proposal, however, it would require raising the debt ceiling by the requisite $2.40 trillion amount into the stages. that is something the president and democratic leaders after yesterday's said is a nonstarter. they say it would create too much uncertainty for the marketplace and the economy if this process had to be replaced at the beginning of next year or summer of next year. >> the house republicans made their own at last it with a cap and balance plan that did not make it to the senate. the pre
-in-law in afghanistan and my sister works as physical therapist with a young man who just lost his leg last year in iraq. now if a man can give his legs up for this country, why can't the wealthy give up some of the tax loopholes, spread a little bit of this around. it is unbelievable the fact -- we don't even have to raise taxes on anybody. just make them pay their taxes. a lot of republicans and small businesses pay their taxes but the super rich don't. and i don't think people understand the kind of tax loophole that is are in shelters. host: we're moving on to foster in centerville, georgia, on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: hi. how are you doing? i'm just wondering now, now we actually elected people to go to congress to balance the budget and pay the bills but do they realize instead of making an amendment, do they already have the authority to pay the bills? host: well now have you let your representative or senator know how you feel about this? caller: we certainly have. me and my girlfriend got together and we got up a sheet with all the republicans representatives. we called all the
and distinction in iraq and afghanistan would feel that way to draw back on the benefits that they earned. during the bush years our country spent $1.5 trillion in iraq and national defense. the turnaround in our budget picture during the bush years was remarkable. in october of 2008, cnn reported that the debt clock had run out of numbers. the debt clock actually had exceeded 13 digits that had been allotted to the clock and had to be revised. according to one report at the end of the bush term, the number of jobs in the nation increased by 2%. that's the lowest at anytime since data began to be collected seven decades ago. gross domestic product was at the lowest pace since the truman administration, and the price that america has paid for the theology that suggested during all of those years that tax cuts pay for themselves. you can't find a mainstream economist in this town today who will acknowledge that argument. and yet we hear now more tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. by the time that the bush years ended, the debt had increased to $10.6 trillion, setting a record for any administra
raging abroad in iraq and afghanistan, also unpaid for. and a new entitlement program passed in the past congress unpaid for. and a wall street that instead of being a free market was a free-for-all market. you put that all together and that's what we're coming out of. so i'm wondering, you know, your answer to me suggests that there isn't anymore monetary policy that is going to come forward that could in essence seek a more faster, more robust recovery with a greater job growth? >> well, as i said in my, in my testimony, we, given that there's a lot of uncertainty how the economy will evolve, we have to keep all options, both for tightening and for easing on the table. we're doing that. but, again, we are already providing an exceptional amount of accommodation and, as you know, recovery is still pretty slow. >> now i want to turn to the question of the debt ceiling. i know you discussed that quite a bit. i find it interesting under president bush's years, he raised the debt ceiling to the tune of about $5.4 trillion, during his period of time. i didn't hear the same comments then that
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)